Comcast to slow down heaviest 'Net users to DSL speeds

Comcast is offering more details about the "protocol agnostic" throttling solution that will replace its current, FCC-denounced approach to network management. Heavy users will be "deprioritized" for 10 to 20 minutes at a time.

@Samduhman, That's exactly what I'm wondering too. The wording for these things are so vague. How do you know when you'll be deprioritized? As a consumer we're left in the dark about these things.

Things like gaming, watching tv/movies, and audio/video chat are only going to increase in bandwidth consumption. I don't like throttling and I don't like this prioritization based upon use. Somethings broken.

What I really like about this is that, even though you're paying for -x- bandwidth, if their "algorithm" sees you actuall using it, you'll hit a speed-bump. First Phorm-style packet injection, then arrogantly not giving their customers what they're paying for. Nice. Time for Comcast users to find another service provider.

The answer to that depends on how much you believe the information Comcast gave in the article. Going by what's printed, maxing out your own line will *not* result in getting throttled. You will only see a slowdown if the entire shared higher-tier connection is maxed out, meaning you and a good number of your neighbors are all doing it.

What they are claiming to do is that once there is no more bandwidth to spare for new users, packets from users whose usage right at that time is low will be pushed ahead of packets from users who at that time are causing much more traffic.

Face it- if the shared line can move 10Mbps and the combined demand on it is 20 then everyone on it is going to slow down somehow. The only question is what policy is used.

Games don't require much bandwidth. I can game and use voice chat on a 512k connection without problem.That means 2 people are going to be using <1mbit/sEven with videos/web radio that's less than 1mbit more, so you're looking at a maximum of 2mbit/s (256KB/s) being used, which probably isn't what they are deeming heavy use.They are going to be going after people using torrents and the like to download lots of files.

Since the slowest Comcast connection appears to be 4mbit/a, using half of that isn't likely going to get you deemed a heavy user.People who are gaming IMO won't be affected because if you are gaming, you're not likely to be being a heavy user at the same time, because that would totally screw up pings and make whatever game unplayable.

Here in Chicago I pay for 16/2 and during the afternoon/evening I typically get around 6-10 maximum. Some services (like PSN) are painfully slow (1mbit or so) during these times. However, I do get the 16mbit at other times. Sadly, I'm sure that despite paying for the top tier Comcast would gleefully throttle me.

Originally posted by swalsh76:It's the same thing as before, honestly. Comcast hasn't said / isn't saying / doesn't know what the thresholds are, and as a result, no one can tell you if it applies to your situation or not.

The problem stems from the fact that network congestion isn't really deterministic or solvable. There's no way for them to quantify what the environment will be like during a period of "high congestion," or how much one heavy user will be using as a threshold. From what it sounds like, this process is dynamic in that it'll pick the heaviest in the congested lot to throttle, regardless of how much data that user is pulling in at the time.

I need to re-read my Comcast EULA. This kind of vague algorithm really muddles the concept of bandwidth tiers. I don't accept over-selling as a legit business model. If an ISP is having serious congestion problems at peak times, then the ISP has to widen the 'tubes. If that means current prices for broadband are deflated compared to the commodity's (bandwidth's) availability, then so be it.

I have a friend that noticed something odd happening when using bittorrent on comcast in the northeast (boston area). When he torrented for more than an hour at a time, his ping would shoot up over 500ms no matter what protocol or what server. Even after stopping the torrents, the ping stays over 500.

Now that they are legally prohibited from shaping by protocol, traffic that is very sensitive to latency (online gaming) will be adversely affected for the busiest users, and traffic that affects user experience (speed of HTTP and streaming media) will have deteriorated performance for those users.

That's what you get for having lawyers and judges making technical decisions. Careful what you ask for.

Or how about these asswipes would stop over-selling their network capacity in the first place? Or - you know, revolutionary thought - expand it so the damn things can actually accommodate all their paying customers???

I use Mozy for my offsite backups and I have backed up more than 400 GB. Before I started my uploading, I called Comcast and specifically asked them if there was going to be a problem. I got an employee name and badge number after she asked her supervisor and I got the green light.

I also fire up transmission for a night every couple weeks and I haven't heard any complaints from Comcast.

As one of the heavy users, I find this reasonable. Guess what, I'm not buying a allotment of bandwidth each month, I'm buying a subscription to Comcast's service. And I find their method a better alternative to other ways of managing their network. If they're only dropping you down to "DSL speeds", and only for 10-20 minutes (or more realistically, until the congestion stays cleared), then what's to complain about? The article says they're upgrading their network, and this is a welcome alternative to interfering with network connections. If you really want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth, I think you know you have to pay a premium for it. The reason you don't have to pay for the full cost is because that cost is shared amongst the subscribers, along with the bandwidth.

Hopefully, this will also replace their harassing of the top tenth of a percent of downloaders... I'd like not to get a phone call saying their dropping my subscription

Yea, the crappy part is that it slows all of your traffic down. It would be nice to QoS the traffic coming out of the house - so VoIP wouldn't be affected, but meanwhile BT gets hit.

On the flip side, how would you trust a user to properly QoS their own packets - they could mark BT traffic as VoIP and subvert the entire system.

I guess I like it better than their previous approach (forging packets). However, I don't have to put up with throttling, bandwidth caps, etc because I pay for a business/SOHO connection from Cox. I pay 2x for the same speed connection but oh well, I don't have to put up with that shit and I get great customer service.

Originally posted by gamen:As one of the heavy users, I find this reasonable. Guess what, I'm not buying a allotment of bandwidth each month, I'm buying a subscription to Comcast's service. And I find their method a better alternative to other ways of managing their network. If they're only dropping you down to "DSL speeds", and only for 10-20 minutes (or more realistically, until the congestion stays cleared), then what's to complain about? The article says they're upgrading their network, and this is a welcome alternative to interfering with network connections. If you really want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth, I think you know you have to pay a premium for it. The reason you don't have to pay for the full cost is because that cost is shared amongst the subscribers, along with the bandwidth.

Hopefully, this will also replace their harassing of the top tenth of a percent of downloaders... I'd like not to get a phone call saying their dropping my subscription

Comcast can't even tell you now how much bandwidth you really get now, what makes anyone think they are going to be able to decide accurately when someone uses too much?

If races were run this way no one would ever win because they would keep moving the finish line and never tell you where it was at. Thats exactly how Comcast treats this whole thing, and they've done it for so long that way they even believe their own justifications enough to invent lies about them.

This seems like nothing more then re-wrapping the P2P throttling thing up in a brand new package and calling it something different.

Originally posted by cloudbuster:Now that they are legally prohibited from shaping by protocol, traffic that is very sensitive to latency (online gaming) will be adversely affected for the busiest users

games barely use any bandwidth, and any gamer concerned about latency will be turning off their torrents before playing.

the most desirable solution from the customer's perspective would be increasing the network capacity, but the ISPs are too cheap/greedy/lazy to do this, so all we're going to get is this, or the previous dicking around with reset packets, or nothing at all.

this method would make a good temporary fix in areas in dire need of capacity upgrades, but Comcast being Comcast, they're just going to throttle everyone, refuse to explain why, and continue to neglect their hardware.

So "heavy users" who tend to be active during prime time might as well save some money by switching to DSL, since that's effectively what they'll be getting out of their cable service according to Comcast's own characterization.

Somehow if I were a Comcast shareholder I think I might be unhappy that they're effectively telling the customers who are arguably the most likely candidates for premium service to switch to the competition.

Originally posted by forgie716:I'll be curious how this will impact the evolution of streaming video (and HD video) if Comcast starts de-prioritizing traffic based on the last 10 to 20 minutes of usage. "Buffering"

Comcast sells cable TV, so how do you think they feel about online alternatives to their TV products.

quote:

Originally posted by gamen:As one of the heavy users, I find this reasonable. Guess what, I'm not buying a allotment of bandwidth each month, I'm buying a subscription to Comcast's service.

LOL. Yeah, they put "up to" in the fine print by the asteriks, but their advertising mentions specific upload/download rates. They want people to read it and think that they're buying an "allotment of bandwidth each month." Specifically, a bigger allotment of bandwidth than they could buy from a DSL provider.

I will delay my judgment on this particular strategy. I am probably a borderline heavy user but ever since I moved from MD to DC and my speed upgrade was never put back on my account (price of faster speed and my cable package was $95/month now its 141 for regular speed and the same channels and box.)

This is likely a system that combines some real time network monitoring and then basically each user gets traffic shaped during congestion periods with traffic from current heavy users being deprioritized via some QOS marking.

It's likely Comcast uses a few QOS tiers atm.

High-Their own management trafficBetter- Their own branded VOIPBest Effort/Normal-Customer trafficLow-Heavy users being deprioritized.

Unlike their last system they are not going to discriminate based on protocols which keeps their network "neutral" which as a common carrier they should be but it will effectively slow down heavy users during periods of congestion. So instead of everyone getting an equal slowdown, the heaviest users see a bigger slowdown and everyone else sees less of a slowdown. Its not a horrible solution if properly implemented.

Of course the usual arguments below still apply and I agree with them wholeheartedly:OversubscriptionWheres my DOCSIS 3?What happened to that speed you promised?The price hikes keep coming, the service keeps being mediocre at bestThere are no other terrestrial options/Local Monopoly!I can't wait for FIOS!I hate <insert local phone/cable monopoly> here!Why can't the US broadband policy be more like Japan/Korea/EU, ya know if we actually had a policy!

Originally posted by gamen:As one of the heavy users, I find this reasonable. Guess what, I'm not buying a allotment of bandwidth each month, I'm buying a subscription to Comcast's service. And I find their method a better alternative to other ways of managing their network. If they're only dropping you down to "DSL speeds", and only for 10-20 minutes (or more realistically, until the congestion stays cleared), then what's to complain about? The article says they're upgrading their network, and this is a welcome alternative to interfering with network connections. If you really want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth, I think you know you have to pay a premium for it. The reason you don't have to pay for the full cost is because that cost is shared amongst the subscribers, along with the bandwidth.

Hopefully, this will also replace their harassing of the top tenth of a percent of downloaders... I'd like not to get a phone call saying their dropping my subscription

If that's not a comcast employee, I've never seen one...

Then you've never seen one

Seriously, I got a phone call from them in July over the 550GB I had uploaded and downloaded in June, so I'm all for alternatives. There is no DSL on my street, they are an outright monopoly, so if they cancel my subscription, I'm screwed for a year... Unless my subsequent call to the Public Utilities Board changes their mind.

Residential internet has never been guaranteed in any way... That's why we don't pay thousands of dollars a month on it, 'cause we can split the cost of a single connection amongst multiple subscribers. And while I love soaking up the excess bandwidth, I also have no problem with fellow subscribers getting their fair share of the connection too.

Now, how much profit does Comcast make on its cable internet? If they have the cash, they should upgrade the network, or lower the price... Otherwise, you get what you pay for.

LOL. Yeah, they put "up to" in the fine print by the asteriks, but their advertising mentions specific upload/download rates. They want people to read it and think that they're buying an "allotment of bandwidth each month." Specifically, a bigger allotment of bandwidth than they could buy from a DSL provider.

Gullibility of their customers is not Comcast's problem. It's the customer's responsibility to determine if their provider's service is a good value or not.

What is the definition of "DSL speeds" by Comcast? How does anyone know that it will in fact be an accurate speed? They can just slow it down to dial-up speed and say, "Yap, that's DSL speeds! Aren't you glad you're on cable?" People are just supposed to trust Comcast all of a sudden?

LOL. Yeah, they put "up to" in the fine print by the asteriks, but their advertising mentions specific upload/download rates. They want people to read it and think that they're buying an "allotment of bandwidth each month." Specifically, a bigger allotment of bandwidth than they could buy from a DSL provider.

Gullibility of their customers is not Comcast's problem. It's the customer's responsibility to determine if their provider's service is a good value or not.

Yeah, right. Cause intentionally misleading advertisements with details hidden in the fine print are good. Gullible people deserve to be fooled, and the rest of us don't lose anything anyway---except for all the time spent looking at the fine print to make sure that what someone is agreeing to deliver is actually the same thing as what they say they are going to deliver.

Yes, it's the customer's responsibility to determine "if their provider's service is a good value or not." Why shouldn't it be Comcast's responsibility to be up-front about the details that the customer needs to make that determination? Why shouldn't it be Comcast's responsibility to design advertising that doesn't try to convey a different message than their actual contractual terms?

Gullibility of their customers is not Comcast's problem. It's the customer's responsibility to determine if their provider's service is a good value or not.

But when Comcast exploits an understanding after the customer has been told something by the company by re-interpeting it to mean something else, thats not gullibility on a customers part, its deception on the companies part.

Originally posted by gamen:As one of the heavy users, I find this reasonable. Guess what, I'm not buying a allotment of bandwidth each month, I'm buying a subscription to Comcast's service. And I find their method a better alternative to other ways of managing their network. If they're only dropping you down to "DSL speeds", and only for 10-20 minutes (or more realistically, until the congestion stays cleared), then what's to complain about? The article says they're upgrading their network, and this is a welcome alternative to interfering with network connections. If you really want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth, I think you know you have to pay a premium for it. The reason you don't have to pay for the full cost is because that cost is shared amongst the subscribers, along with the bandwidth.

Hopefully, this will also replace their harassing of the top tenth of a percent of downloaders... I'd like not to get a phone call saying their dropping my subscription

If you really want a guaranteed amount of bandwidth, I think you know you have to pay a premium for it. The reason you don't have to pay for the full cost is because that cost is shared amongst the subscribers, along with the bandwidth.

How about this as a thought exercise: suppose the FCC mandates that Comcast is required to guarantee that the advertised bandwidth for every single user is always available. What do you think the traffic on their network would look like? What do you think this would do to prices? Do you think that this would be a good thing for the average Comcast subscriber?

...except for all the time spent looking at the fine print to make sure that what someone is agreeing to deliver is actually the same thing as what they say they are going to deliver.

Yes, it's the customer's responsibility to determine "if their provider's service is a good value or not." Why shouldn't it be Comcast's responsibility to be up-front about the details that the customer needs to make that determination? Why shouldn't it be Comcast's responsibility to design advertising that doesn't try to convey a different message than their actual contractual terms?

quote:

Originally posted by Jack_o:But when Comcast exploits an understanding after the customer has been told something by the company by re-interpeting it to mean something else, thats not gullibility on a customers part, its deception on the companies part.

It's gullibility to take anything a company's marketing department says at face value. I'm pretty sure the service agreement the customer agreed to states that no guarantees are made about availability of bandwidth. And that is what customers should be paying attention to if they care about knowing what they are getting. Yeah it's a pain but that's reality, sorry if you can't handle it.

There's not really anything that can be done about the situation that is better than what Comcast is planning, other than just biting the bullet and upgrading the network. Under conditions of network congestion, they either have to slow down some user's connections or they start dropping packets, which makes the connection worse for everyone, even the heavy user. The only thing I'd say about this is that Comcast needs to observe their network and prioritize upgrades to any nodes that are continuously running into congested conditions, because it's quite likely that some of their more oversold nodes are going to end up throttling people all the time.